As I said previously, I really don't know why people are surprised by Ocean being decommissioned, we were told of this in 2015. Anyway no use crying over spilt milk. We still have Albion and Bulwark, who can also put the heavy gear ashore which Ocean cannot do.

QE class can also sit farther offshore with her merlin troop carriers, so she wouldn't be 3 to 4 miles offshore to put troops ashore quickly. You also seem to forget that unlike Ocean the QE class have the F35 for close air support, and to carry out pre landing attacks to take out threat sites ashore.

The key difference here is that an LPH needs to be reasonably near the beach head, senior officers stare ideally 3-4 miles so the helicopters are flying short hops making the most of fuel air lifting in troops and equipment to whichever area required and Ocean was built to fulfil that role which the Falklands clearly illustrated clearly existed and which we were critically short of at that time. The QEs are designed primarily as extremely expensive strike carrriers which like Hermes and Invincible will be well away from primary danger zones.

The following is an excerpt from an article published by " Save The Royal Navy
They want to save the Ocean but at the same time admit it would have to go into reserve as we couldn't man it as well as two carriers. So how would it be resurected and manned in an emergency, you can't just put reservists and non essential personel onboard at the drop of a hat and expect them to actually take the ship to sea as a fighting entity as they suggest,this is just wishfull thinking, it also shows the limitations in her lifespan, and a vessel in her condition would deteriorate very quickly whilst laid up.

So, do you want two carriers, or one carrier and an ageing LPH which due to financial considerations is a decision you would have to make.

Following is from "Save The Royal Navy"

"Manpower and reserve

When HMS Ocean leaves the fleet in 2018 the manpower this will release will almost immediately be needed to crew HMS Prince of Wales. The current personnel available to the RN means there can be no question of keeping HMS Ocean active while manning both carriers. It would require a very dramatic improvement in retention rates plus an increase in recruitment and associated funding which is simply unlikely to happen in the next 2 years. The sensible solution would be for HMS Ocean to go into reserve instead of for scrap or sale. This would give the option of activating the ship in an emergency (using naval reservists and moving manpower from non-essential jobs). It seems likely that top of the RN wishlist for the 2020 SDSR would be funding for a more significant increase in manpower, ideally at least 2,000 more people. If the manpower situation was to ease HMS Ocean could possibly be reactivated in future. Even if she was never re-activated she would at least be part of the RNís nominal order of battle (ORBAT). In the short-sighted world of Whitehall, it is much easier to argue the case for the replacement of a ship that exists than to get a new ship from scratch. Keeping HMS Ocean in reserve would cost little, offer a valuable addition to the fleet in a crisis and point the way to an eventual replacement.

The biggest argument against keeping Ocean would be the material state of the ship. Built only to semi-warship standards and with a 20 year hull life, she could require expensive work to keep her seaworthy after 2018. Ocean underwent major refits in 2007 and 2014-15 and she could probably be realistically kept as a viable reserve vessel for another 5-10 years. Keeping her alongside and internally de-humidified reduces corrosion and wear on the ship. To re-activate her might require some work but better to have a ship in an imperfect state than no ship at all. Who would bet against her giving good service for at least another decade if sold to a lower-tier foreign navy?

The following is an excerpt from an article published by " Save The Royal Navy
They want to save the Ocean but at the same time admit it would have to go into reserve as we couldn't man it as well as two carriers. So how would it be resurected and manned in an emergency, you can't just put reservists and non essential personel onboard at the drop of a hat and expect them to actually take the ship to sea as a fighting entity as they suggest,this is just wishfull thinking, it also shows the limitations in her lifespan, and a vessel in her condition would deteriorate very quickly whilst laid up.

So, do you want two carriers, or one carrier and an ageing LPH which due to financial considerations is a decision you would have to make.

Following is from "Save The Royal Navy"

"Manpower and reserve

When HMS Ocean leaves the fleet in 2018 the manpower this will release will almost immediately be needed to crew HMS Prince of Wales. The current personnel available to the RN means there can be no question of keeping HMS Ocean active while manning both carriers. It would require a very dramatic improvement in retention rates plus an increase in recruitment and associated funding which is simply unlikely to happen in the next 2 years. The sensible solution would be for HMS Ocean to go into reserve instead of for scrap or sale. This would give the option of activating the ship in an emergency (using naval reservists and moving manpower from non-essential jobs). It seems likely that top of the RN wishlist for the 2020 SDSR would be funding for a more significant increase in manpower, ideally at least 2,000 more people. If the manpower situation was to ease HMS Ocean could possibly be reactivated in future. Even if she was never re-activated she would at least be part of the RNís nominal order of battle (ORBAT). In the short-sighted world of Whitehall, it is much easier to argue the case for the replacement of a ship that exists than to get a new ship from scratch. Keeping HMS Ocean in reserve would cost little, offer a valuable addition to the fleet in a crisis and point the way to an eventual replacement.

The biggest argument against keeping Ocean would be the material state of the ship. Built only to semi-warship standards and with a 20 year hull life, she could require expensive work to keep her seaworthy after 2018. Ocean underwent major refits in 2007 and 2014-15 and she could probably be realistically kept as a viable reserve vessel for another 5-10 years. Keeping her alongside and internally de-humidified reduces corrosion and wear on the ship. To re-activate her might require some work but better to have a ship in an imperfect state than no ship at all. Who would bet against her giving good service for at least another decade if sold to a lower-tier foreign navy?

Ocean's material state is no where near as bad as some would like to think, and if sold to another navy she'll be around for many years to come ( MOD have formally acknowledged a sale to Brazil is an option)The RN's chronic manpower shortage is solely responsible for this situation, and before trying to decide whether you want two active QE's or one with an LPH with the other laid up or mothballed, you need to consider that due to the low rate production of the F35B, we won't have enough of them to make the QE fully operational until at least 2023, and that's an ambitious estimate. So what are you actually going to do with POW? She'll simply be a floating white elephant for a good few years to come. Retain your amphibious attack capability (LPD'S have landing craft but no facility to service or maintain helicopters), along with one Carrier, lay POW up, until you can recruit and train essential personnel to crew her and we actually have aircraft to put on her. Meantime plan and build a replacement for Ocean so over the years you maintain and then actually boost your existing capabilities instead of sacrificing one for the other.

POW will most likely will be utilized as a large LPH most of her early life offering those aboard an increased standard of living, and unlike Ocean is capable of some actual speed.

An oversized anti-submarine LPH perhaps? The key thing to remember is the QEs are strike carriers, and their size and importance (that should include cost? ) precludes ever deliberatly placing them in harms way - which includes in range of land based air assets with anti-ship capability ( super etendards with Exocet for example) and powerful shore based anti- ship missiles designed to tear a carrier apart. Our new Carriers have a function to fulfil which will never include lying a few miles off shore as an amphibious LPH - except perhaps in a very safe, carefully staged public relations exercise.

Ocean's material state is no where near as bad as some would like to think, and if sold to another navy she'll be around for many years to come ( MOD have formally acknowledged a sale to Brazil is an option)The RN's chronic manpower shortage is solely responsible for this situation, and before trying to decide whether you want two active QE's or one with an LPH with the other laid up or mothballed, you need to consider that due to the low rate production of the F35B, we won't have enough of them to make the QE fully operational until at least 2023, and that's an ambitious estimate. So what are you actually going to do with POW? She'll simply be a floating white elephant for a good few years to come. Retain your amphibious attack capability (LPD'S have landing craft but no facility to service or maintain helicopters), along with one Carrier, lay POW up, until you can recruit and train essential personnel to crew her and we actually have aircraft to put on her. Meantime plan and build a replacement for Ocean so over the years you maintain and then actually boost your existing capabilities instead of sacrificing one for the other.

Firstly, with what authority do you speak when you say that Oceans material state is nowhere near as bad as some would like to think. Do you have first hand knowledge in regards to this ?

Secondly if sold to another navy then of course she will be around for years to come, that will be out of necessity due to the fact they have no other options.If they had they wouldn't be buying second hand cast offs would they.

The chronic manpower shortage is not the sole reason she is being paid off, she was built with a 20yr lifetime in mind, and even after a £65m refit in 2014 she is still not up to the standard the RN needs.Also your much vaunted amphibious capability based on Ocean, is pretty limited and mostly based on her rotary capability. Her landing craft can only carry small numbers of troops, and even less heavy equipment compared to the LPD's. Not forgetting we also have the 'Bays' at our disposal which have not been mentioned.

If the QE is fully operational by 2023 that will be a job well done, and it is not down to the lack of aircraft. Do you actually realise how long it takes to get a carrier and it's airwing up to the standard of being able to fight a hot war. As in the RN's case we are virtualy starting again from scratch, and it was stated by a US source that as such it can take up to ten years. How many pilots do you think that the RAF/RN have or will have trained to fly the F35, you buy the aircraft as you need them, which is exactly how we are doing it. https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/15735 / http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...ning-gap-looms

Your idea of laying up the POW is a completely retrograde step, one which the RN fought successfully against. Your remarks re them not being put in harms way is very strange. You keep quoting land based air assets and shore based anti ship missiles. So what about missiles fired from enemy surface units or submarines, do we keep them away from that danger as well. In which case we may as well lay both of them up alongside, they are warships and they are supposed to go into danger, that is their reason for being.

Firstly, with what authority do you speak when you say that Oceans material state is nowhere near as bad as some would like to think. Do you have first hand knowledge in regards to this ?

Secondly if sold to another navy then of course she will be around for years to come, that will be out of necessity due to the fact they have no other options.If they had they wouldn't be buying second hand cast offs would they.

The chronic manpower shortage is not the sole reason she is being paid off, she was built with a 20yr lifetime in mind, and even after a £65m refit in 2014 she is still not up to the standard the RN needs.Also your much vaunted amphibious capability based on Ocean, is pretty limited and mostly based on her rotary capability. Her landing craft can only carry small numbers of troops, and even less heavy equipment compared to the LPD's. Not forgetting we also have the 'Bays' at our disposal which have not been mentioned.

If the QE is fully operational by 2023 that will be a job well done, and it is not down to the lack of aircraft. Do you actually realise how long it takes to get a carrier and it's airwing up to the standard of being able to fight a hot war. As in the RN's case we are virtualy starting again from scratch, and it was stated by a US source that as such it can take up to ten years. How many pilots do you think that the RAF/RN have or will have trained to fly the F35, you buy the aircraft as you need them, which is exactly how we are doing it. https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/15735 / http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...ning-gap-looms

Your idea of laying up the POW is a completely retrograde step, one which the RN fought successfully against. Your remarks re them not being put in harms way is very strange. You keep quoting land based air assets and shore based anti ship missiles. So what about missiles fired from enemy surface units or submarines, do we keep them away from that danger as well. In which case we may as well lay both of them up alongside, they are warships and they are supposed to go into danger, that is their reason for being.

With what authority do speak to suggest the vessels material state is poor? 'British cast offs' have served, and continue to serve other navies very well - Hermes 23 yrs with RN, 30 years with Indian Navy! 5 out of 6 Type 21 still in service with Pakistan etc. As for an expected service life, can you name a vessel, particularly a large one that has not exceeded it's intended life by a good many years? It all depends on how much you are willing to spend. Yes it takes a good few years to bring back old skills, but we've been working on that with help from our allies for years already. I was actually referring to sufficient available aircraft numbers, if we could buy as fast as we need that would be a bonus, but the low rate production is hindering this. If the RN could crew Ocean she wouldn't be going, there is a lot of opposition to her passing, with alternatives such as turning her in to an RFA, but the cost of upgrading the accommodation means this is extremely unlikely to happen. Ocean's 'rotary capability' is the reason she was built, yes we have the Bays (3) and 1 active LPD ( one is laid up because we can't crew her), and yes they have landing craft to put men and equipment ashore, but in this age that's not enough, we learned that lesson in 1982 - hence the fact we have Ocean. Due to its size and role an LPH normally has a shallower draft allowing it to manoeuvre closer to land, where larger carriers with deep drafts would struggle. A large Warship like QE is far better protected in deep water where she can manouvre surrounded by her escorts including a submarine, of course she'll be exposed to a variety of threats, but stands a far better chance of survival than she will in shallower water manoeuvring very slowly or stopped. At the end of the day we'd all like to see both carriers and an LPH in service together, but sadly that isn't going to happen, you pays your money and makes your choice, time will tell if we've made the right choice or not!

With what authority do speak to suggest the vessels material state is poor? 'British cast offs' have served, and continue to serve other navies very well - Hermes 23 yrs with RN, 30 years with Indian Navy! 5 out of 6 Type 21 still in service with Pakistan etc. As for an expected service life, can you name a vessel, particularly a large one that has not exceeded it's intended life by a good many years? It all depends on how much you are willing to spend. Yes it takes a good few years to bring back old skills, but we've been working on that with help from our allies for years already. I was actually referring to sufficient available aircraft numbers, if we could buy as fast as we need that would be a bonus, but the low rate production is hindering this. If the RN could crew Ocean she wouldn't be going, there is a lot of opposition to her passing, with alternatives such as turning her in to an RFA, but the cost of upgrading the accommodation means this is extremely unlikely to happen. Ocean's 'rotary capability' is the reason she was built, yes we have the Bays (3) and 1 active LPD ( one is laid up because we can't crew her), and yes they have landing craft to put men and equipment ashore, but in this age that's not enough, we learned that lesson in 1982 - hence the fact we have Ocean. Due to its size and role an LPH normally has a shallower draft allowing it to manoeuvre closer to land, where larger carriers with deep drafts would struggle. A large Warship like QE is far better protected in deep water where she can manouvre surrounded by her escorts including a submarine, of course she'll be exposed to a variety of threats, but stands a far better chance of survival than she will in shallower water manoeuvring very slowly or stopped. At the end of the day we'd all like to see both carriers and an LPH in service together, but sadly that isn't going to happen, you pays your money and makes your choice, time will tell if we've made the right choice or not!

Why are you answering my question with another question ? but be that as it may I am not anwering with any authority on the poor material state of Ocean, merely voicing what is the general opinion of this vessel. You on the other hand made a definitive statement i.e. "Ocean's material state is no where near as bad as some would like to think" which suggested to me that you had first hand information, which clearly by your answer you do not.

As for RN cast offs I have already addressed that subject .

As far as the F35 low rate production you refer to, are you aware that more than 400 aircraft have already been built. If on the other hand you are talking of the numbers that the UK is buying in the LRIP (low rate initial production) batches I have likewise addressed that as well.

Yes Ocean would be going even if we could crew her, the £65m refit was intended to keep her going until 2018, and that is mentioned in articles refering to the said refit. The opposition to her passing is not coming from the higher tiers of the RN hierarchy.

The rest is self evident, apart from the fact that I mentioned before, the QE would not need to be put into a situation where she would be in shallow or restricted waters.

Have you ever served on HMS Ocean gruntfuttock? Do you have any direct connection with the ship or have any knowledge and experience of helicopter operations in support of an amphibious landing? I haven't served on her personally but know a good few who have, who incidentally don't have a bad word to say about her. When you say 'we were told in 2015 she was going' - who is 'we'? The 2015 SDSR does not mention Ocean at all, indeed the 2014 refit was intended to see her through until around 2022/3, with upgrades to accommodation, armament and Radars including Artisan. You seem to refer to 'British cast offs' in a derogatory manner, despite the fact that a lot of ships are sold off before their time and are bargains, Ocean would be one of those.

Have you ever served on HMS Ocean gruntfuttock? Do you have any direct connection with the ship or have any knowledge and experience of helicopter operations in support of an amphibious landing? I haven't served on her personally but know a good few who have, who incidentally don't have a bad word to say about her. When you say 'we were told in 2015 she was going' - who is 'we'? The 2015 SDSR does not mention Ocean at all, indeed the 2014 refit was intended to see her through until around 2022/3, with upgrades to accommodation, armament and Radars including Artisan. You seem to refer to 'British cast offs' in a derogatory manner, despite the fact that a lot of ships are sold off before their time and are bargains, Ocean would be one of those.

Have I ever served on HMS Ocean, No. Although I wasn't aware that it was necessary to have served on a vessel before one could comment on it. If that logic was followed, then I would suggest that there would be a huge reduction in contributors on all defence blogs, including your good self. Have I ever had experience of helicopter ops in support of an amphibious landing, yes but limited.

Neither have you served onboard her, in which case you are also only going on hearsay, so you are hardly in a position to take me to task on that are you.

When i say 'we' I mean 'we' the public, I thought that would have been obvious.

In regards to her being decommissioned in 2018, I'm afraid that we were told in 2015, Extract from Wiki, though there is more on this if you care to look at other sources :-

" On 24 November 2015, the MoD confirmed that HMS Ocean is to be decommissioned in 2018 as part of cost saving measures with no like-for-like replacement.[50] Under the 2015 Strategic Defence Review, one of two 65,000-ton Queen Elizabeth-class carriers now being assembled at Rosyth, HMS Prince of Wales, would be “enhanced” with the addition of new systems to support Royal Marine amphibious operations. However, current plans do not envisage both carriers operating at the same time except in an emergency."

My use of the phrase 'cast off's' was just that, a figure of speech and was in no way meant to be derogatory.

The "flagship of the Royal Navy" is to be decommissioned after a multi-million pound refit.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed the move would happen in 2018, when HMS Ocean "reached the end of her life", despite no mention of it in Monday's Strategic Defence and Security Review.

The Devonport-based helicopter carrier and assault ship underwent a £65m upgrade in 2014.

The MoD said it would maintain a "significant amphibious capability".

It said there would be new Type 26 warships and frigates; two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers; as well as the existing fleet which includes HMS Bulwark.

When making the announcement the MoD said it was old news.

However, in 2012 ahead of the £65m refit, Defence Minister Philip Dunne said: "I am delighted that this contract will not only ensure that HMS Ocean remains a significant, highly-flexible and capable warship for years to come".

BBC South West political editor, Martyn Oates, said the announcement raised concerns for its home port of Plymouth.

"With no like-for-like replacement planned, concerns in Ocean's home port of Plymouth will focus on how many of the new ships promised by the Prime Minister yesterday will be based in the city and whether that will be enough to fill the rather large hole left by the retiring flagship."

An MoD spokesman said: "HMS Ocean will not decommission early and will continue in service as planned well into this Parliament.

"As part of the SDSR process, the decision was taken not to extend her and to decommission her in 2018, in line with her 20-year life span."

HMS Ocean - Britain's largest warship - is currently deployed in the Mediterranean on a Nato exercise.

Note the following lines from the article:

"When making the announcement the MoD said it was old news."

"An MoD spokesman said: "HMS Ocean will not decommission early and will continue in service as planned well into this Parliament. As part of the SDSR process, the decision was taken not to extend her and to decommission her in 2018, in line with her 20-year life span.""

Asked by Douglas Chapman
(Dunfermline and West Fife)
Asked on: 19 April 2017
Ministry of Defence
Aircraft Carriers
71236
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to paragraph 1.12 of the National Audit Office report, Delivering Carrier Strike, published on 16 March 2017, what contingencies his Department is considering to provide ship to shore amphibious operations after the decommissioning of HMS Ocean in 2018.
A
Answered by: Harriett Baldwin
Answered on: 25 April 2017

The Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 made provision to augment the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers and maximise their ability to support our amphibious operations. Together with the existing amphibious ships of the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, this will provide the capability to deploy our amphibious forces.

Have I ever served on HMS Ocean, No. Although I wasn't aware that it was necessary to have served on a vessel before one could comment on it. If that logic was followed, then I would suggest that there would be a huge reduction in contributors on all defence blogs, including your good self. Have I ever had experience of helicopter ops in support of an amphibious landing, yes but limited.

Neither have you served onboard her, in which case you are also only going on hearsay, so you are hardly in a position to take me to task on that are you.

When i say 'we' I mean 'we' the public, I thought that would have been obvious.

In regards to her being decommissioned in 2018, I'm afraid that we were told in 2015, Extract from Wiki, though there is more on this if you care to look at other sources :-

" On 24 November 2015, the MoD confirmed that HMS Ocean is to be decommissioned in 2018 as part of cost saving measures with no like-for-like replacement.[50] Under the 2015 Strategic Defence Review, one of two 65,000-ton Queen Elizabeth-class carriers now being assembled at Rosyth, HMS Prince of Wales, would be “enhanced” with the addition of new systems to support Royal Marine amphibious operations. However, current plans do not envisage both carriers operating at the same time except in an emergency."

My use of the phrase 'cast off's' was just that, a figure of speech and was in no way meant to be derogatory.

GF

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, providing of course you are willing to acknowledge and respect those of others - even if they don't mirror what you've read on the Internet. Some opinions on here will be more informed than others, due in the main to the fact that some of us have backgrounds through which we've gained first hand knowledge and experience of a particular vessel/class and varying ops, either through serving on a vessel or direct or indirect contact with it, but hopefully that helps to inspire discussion. You'll note that much to everyone's surprise there was no mention of Ocean in the 2015 SDSR, and the MOD announcement was made post SDSR - why? The answer lies perhaps in what the SDSR didn't say?
The question raised and answered in 2017 was poorly worded, and easily evaded because it merely referred to our amphibious capability when it comes to putting troops and kit ashore......... We learned in 82 that we could put our guys ashore at San Carlos - but we lacked any heavy lifting capability to move them inland, and had the Argentine Airforce targeted the beach head instead of the ships, the operation would have been over there and then. Ocean and her proposed sister were born out of combat experience and a lesson learned, which is now being conveniently forgotten. The future will be interesting one way or another.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, providing of course you are willing to acknowledge and respect those of others - even if they don't mirror what you've read on the Internet. Some opinions on here will be more informed than others, due in the main to the fact that some of us have backgrounds through which we've gained first hand knowledge and experience of a particular vessel/class and varying ops, either through serving on a vessel or direct or indirect contact with it, but hopefully that helps to inspire discussion. You'll note that much to everyone's surprise there was no mention of Ocean in the 2015 SDSR, and the MOD announcement was made post SDSR - why? The answer lies perhaps in what the SDSR didn't say?
The question raised and answered in 2017 was poorly worded, and easily evaded because it merely referred to our amphibious capability when it comes to putting troops and kit ashore......... We learned in 82 that we could put our guys ashore at San Carlos - but we lacked any heavy lifting capability to move them inland, and had the Argentine Airforce targeted the beach head instead of the ships, the operation would have been over there and then. Ocean and her proposed sister were born out of combat experience and a lesson learned, which is now being conveniently forgotten. The future will be interesting one way or another.

@Jack.

You think my experience comes just from what I've read on the internet ?.
I could give you a rundown on the number and types of all the ships I served on, during a 25yr stint at sea, but I really can't be bothered, as it seems you just can't accept facts. No heavy lift capability, try reading about Atlantic conveyor if you want to know what happened to the heavy lift. It wasn't the beach head they needed to target, it was the tankers and supply ships they needed to negate. Get rid of them and you have to go home.

Believe me I had first hand experience of the submarine threat in the Falklands campaign. So please don't try teaching your granny to suck eggs. That's all I have to say on the matter.

You think my experience comes just from what I've read on the internet ?.
I could give you a rundown on the number and types of all the ships I served on, during a 25yr stint at sea, but I really can't be bothered, as it seems you just can't accept facts. No heavy lift capability, try reading about Atlantic conveyor if you want to know what happened to the heavy lift. It wasn't the beach head they needed to target, it was the tankers and supply ships they needed to negate. Get rid of them and you have to go home.

Believe me I had first hand experience of the submarine threat in the Falklands campaign. So please don't try teaching your granny to suck eggs. That's all I have to say on the matter.

GF

No, you have just kept referring to the net in previous posts. We've had similar backgrounds, I was there in 82 and I believe we saw the war from 2 different sides of the coin - above and below the waves. We had to send the Chinooks south on the Conveyor because we didn't have a dedicated platform available, and her loss with the helos aboard was a hell of a blow! Attacking supply ships etc before the landing made sense, but the mistake was to continue doing that after we'd got the guys ashore. No one is teaching anyone anything here, I salute a fellow vet.

Ocean left Devonport yesterday 03/07/17 for Sunderland and is seen below passing Devil's Point on the way out from the Yard. She looked quite imposing as usual but was noticeably in need of a splash of paint in a few places. Maybe someone in Sunderland can oblige?

Jim, she left Devonport yesterday 03/07/17 and is seen below passing Devil's Point on the way out from the Yard. She looked quite imposing as usual but was noticeably in need of a splash of paint in a few places. Maybe someone in Sunderland can oblige?

Regards....Paul

Many thanks Paul, B&Q here has a colour match paint mixer, so they may be able to help. I think all of our paint producers, including Camrex Paints, closed with the demise of shipbuilding here.

Jim, she left Devonport yesterday 03/07/17 and is seen below passing Devil's Point on the way out from the Yard. She looked quite imposing as usual but was noticeably in need of a splash of paint in a few places. Maybe someone in Sunderland can oblige?

Regards....Paul

Looks like they touched her up before she arrived here. Perhaps there is a B&Q down the coast

I took a few photos last night around the time that a Ceremonial Sunset display was put on for visiting guests. A nice sunny night with a lovely sky as the sun went down. The photos were shot from the National Glass Centre roof, on the opposite side of the river.